PER ARUN KUMAR GOEL, JUDGE:

1. Petitioners, numbering 155 have filed this writ petition with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow them to perform their duties as casual labourers; with a further direction to regularise the services in the department as well as prohibiting the respondents for dispensing with their services as casual labourers.

2. Backdrop of this case according to petitioners is that they were employed with Integrated Water Shed Development Project and all of them are members of Union under the name and style of "Integrated Water Shed Development Project, Hill Employees Union, Jammu (J&K)". This Union is a registered trade union and a copy of the certificate of its registration has been placed on record as Annexure "A" to the petition. Further case of the petitioners is that they regularly go to the office and mark their presence but they apprehend their disengagement by the respondents without any valid reason. In these circumstances it has been mentioned that respondents may be directed to permit the petitioners to continue performing their duties and also pay their wages.

3. On the other hand stand of the respondents in their objections filed to the writ petition is that petitioners were casual labourers and not daily wagers. So there is no question of their being regularised. A writ is stated to be not maintainable since no relief can be claimed by the petitioners as casual labourers because the very nomenclature indicates that they are engaged only as and when the need arises from time to time. Besides this, it is also pleaded by the respondents that there is no statutory right whereby State is under an obligation to allow the petitioners to continue in job. The right of petitioners to maintain a writ of mandamus was also disputed since there is no statutory right in their favour leading to a corresponding duty upon the respondents as claimed.

4. While admitting that the services of the petitioners were engaged, it has been pleaded that Integrated Water Shed Development Project being a World Bank Aided Project was started during the year 1990 and 1991 and was to come to an end on and with effect from 30.6.1997. But one year extension having been given by the World Bank, it continued to June, 1998. In these circumstances it is clearly pleaded that no casual labourer can be engaged after 30.6.1998, and till this date wages of all the casual labourers have been paid as fixed under the rules wherever engaged. Thus in this background it was submitted that the petitioners have no right to insist upon the State to convert casual labourers into permanent service. Rejoinder was filed to this reply of State, and according to para-3 under the heading Preliminary™ it has been stated that the petitioners have acquired the status of daily wagers because for all this period since the date of their engagement .they are regularly performing their duties, as such they cannot be now termed as casual labourers as were initially called. While replying to paragraph- 9 of the objections it has been stated by the petitioners that even after June, 1998 Project is still existing and continuing. Further case of the petitioners in their rejoinder is that they have information that now again there has been expansion of Project and after its expansion the petitioners have been allowed to work. So they have also got every right to get their wages.

5. In view of the admitted position of this case that the services of the petitioners on their own showing in the writ petition were engaged as casual labourers, that too in a Project; and for the purpose of regularisation SRO 64 of 1994 contains instructions of the Government whereunder in a proper case services of daily rated employees are liable to be regularised. There is no material to show that on the appointed day petitioners had completed the requisite number of years, and rightly so because the services of the petitioners were engaged by the responden

Click Here to Read the rest of this document